IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Re: Network Time Protocol (NTP) Options for DHCPv6

"David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org> Wed, 21 November 2007 16:53 UTC

Return-path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuspf-0003cE-B5; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:53:47 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuspe-0003c2-Bf for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:53:46 -0500
Received: from [2001:4f8:3:bb:20c:76ff:fe16:4040] (helo=goliath.isc.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuspd-0003MX-P0 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:53:46 -0500
Received: by goliath.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10200) id 639C55A6ED; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:53:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:53:23 -0800
From: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org>
To: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Re: Network Time Protocol (NTP) Options for DHCPv6
Message-ID: <20071121165323.GC3291@isc.org>
References: <A05118C6DF9320488C77F3D5459B17B7062ED3C6@xmb-ams-333.emea.cisco.com> <4733482A.7020302@sun.com> <A05118C6DF9320488C77F3D5459B17B70634E4E5@xmb-ams-333.emea.cisco.com> <473D0C34.4030507@ntp.org> <1195185173.26090.4.camel@uma> <474114E3.9040309@ntp.org> <474198BA.3000109@sun.com> <4743B902.3030406@udel.edu> <47445863.4000208@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <47445863.4000208@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Cc: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1747740323=="
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:10:11AM -0500, Mark Stapp wrote:
> very long, a client who got NTP addresses and found itself having 
> trouble with them all could also use the INFORMATION-REQUEST message to 
> check whether the addresses were still valid, outside of the normal 
> renewal timers.

We have at least one DHCPv4 client that does this, and it is not
adviseable.  I don't want to get into a nuts and bolts 'thing' for
the NTP people, we can talk about that on DHC separately if you like.

The short version of my opinion is that it's preferrable to renew
early, if you take any special action at all.  If the operator
selects a long lease time, without specifying a short renew time,
they are selecting this behaviour by design.  So an even better
interpretation is to just wait the normal renew interval, even it
is terribly long.

No special action is best by far.

-- 
Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Why settle for the lesser evil?	 https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/
-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email